Those who stand against the Animal Liberation Front's actions, the fashionably
moderate Republicrats, have had their time to speak. They have already condemned
the group as "violent terrorists." It's time for a dissenting opinion.

I find it quite sad (and indicative of the gross materialism of our society)
that in our country we hold material possessions in such high regard that we
equate their destruction with destruction of living, feeling, sentient beings
and call it "violence." The animal front picked targets carefully, destroying
specifically those instruments that perpetuated torture of animals; they
destroyed the outcomes of said torture ("research"), which in fact had
questionable real-world applications to begin with (as there is evidence that
animal research is useless in predicting the effects of certain chemicals on
humans).

Most students, myself included, had no idea that animal testing even happened
here at the UI. Afterwards, it was disclosed by UI President David Skorton that,
even if animals were being tested, it was always in a "humane" manner. According
to what the animal front discovered, this assertion is absolute rubbish.
Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the front than an administrator who
obviously has a reputation to uphold.

I am indeed tired of the word "terrorist" being thrown around to describe the
group - "intimidation in order to achieve political ends." Name one country that
doesn't do this. The very nature of government is coercive. How is it acceptable
for the government to use intimidation to achieve its ends (with the utilization
of real violence) but not for individual people to fight for what's right
utilizing nonviolent means? Why is it that the civil disobedience of the past is
romanticized (the civil-rights movement, suffrage movement, etc.) and yet more
recent manifestations are now condemned by people throughout the political
spectrum (even by so-called "progressive liberals")? An animal-front action has
never resulted in another person's death. How many people have died because of
U.S. wars of aggression and "economic interest"? That's a pretty big number. How
about just during this year?

Are you beginning to see the real hypocrisy here?

I also find it a bit ironic that one of the primary complaints about the action
is the financial cost to the university. And yet the university is offering a
$10,000 reward for information about the "culprits." Aren't there much better
uses for this money? Give someone a scholarship or something. The damage is
done. Are we really so bent on "punishment" that we'll whine about the cost of
animal liberation and then gladly pay exorbitant amounts of money just to "teach
someone a lesson"?

I'm not the only person who feels this way. We are out there in solidarity with
the freedom fighters who were only doing what was best for the animals, although
many of us are remaining silent because of the fear of persecution and
accusations of involvement. The brave men and women of the animal front risk
their own liberty to bring liberty to animals on a regular basis all over the
United States and England. Smashed computers and a few privileged college kids
having to miss a day of class is a small price to pay for this.

Maria Cassino
UI student
"Most of the faces I see on the covers of music magazines are just dreadful
- people with nothing to offer the world at all." -Morrissey
smashing apathy with conviction:
http://www.beyondtheself.org